|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:This is precisely why WWII ended up being great for europe on the planning front, they could basically start from scratch using more modern methods and analysis whereas a lot of the US was built in the late 1800s early 1900s. Btw most European cities were rebuilt as they were and tram/metro systems were generally repaired, some buildings were replaced but most of the street structure stayed the same. The US if anything took more of a revolutionary approach by nearly turning its back on transit completely in exchange for mass demolition of urban areas to build freeways. Eh the former Soviet Union was even bigger and less dense, and it had a completely different design for its cities (and that includes cities that weren't demolished by the Second World War). However, the Soviets promoted tram/trolleybus transit to highly dense suburbs instead of sprawl, we made a choice (and most Soviet cities were still designed old historic centers as well). It wasn't just situational, we made a specific choice to design things this way. BRT/Light Rail is probably the best you are going to do with a city like Pheonix, but it isn't too late to also prioritized dense affordable housing. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Aug 3, 2018 |
#
¿
Aug 3, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 04:33 |
|
|
luxury handset posted:oh no, parking minimums in the us are usually grossly outsized (typically meant to handle PEAK requirements not average, so they're vacant most of the time) and were it not for the common requirement that every business be firmly defended by a thick moat of asphalt then on the upward swing of a development cycle this land would be redeveloped since it is very easy to redevelop, being nothing but a thin coat of paving material over empty land The issue though with reducing or eliminating parking mediums (as shown in Portland Oregon) it becomes a mess when you but little infrastructure development to back it up. Ideally, you would have both working in tandem. Basically, the Portland Metro is pretty good at pro-scribing certain aspects of sprawl and utterly laughable at actually fixing any subsequent issue because it would actually cost money.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2018 11:38
|
|
|
fermun posted:YIMBY people often ignore the fact that their typical pro-density development ideas result in displacement of the people that actually use public transport, and result in a net increased greenhouse gas emissions due to displacing the poor who then have to commute by car. I image it is just an outgrowth of the more advanced concentration in particularly the bay area. But yeah, no one is talking about banning the construction of private housing or attached subsidized affordable housing, but as long as public housing is neglected, this issue is going to only get worse. It is simply a matter of supply, and it isn't feasible for the private housing market to provide the vast amount of low-cost housing coastal cities need. Also "YIMBY" policy usually predictably enough neglects infrastructure investment beyond low-capacity transit like streetcars. It isn't that streetcars are a bad thing (in a limited context), but they are not an actual replacement for genuine transit, not to mention schools and other elements needed to create a reliable social fabric. Honestly, the situation might be fine for a single upper-middle-class person who can afford ubers everywhere, but yeah that doesn't help everyone else.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2018 10:01
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Where do you get the idea that YIMBY policy is just bad streetcars? A lot of those came about recently because of the USDOT TIGER grant program incentivizing stuff like that and boosterism from Chambers of Commerce etc. Everyone I know who's actually involved in this stuff thinks they're bad and wants actual transit investment - Seattle and LA have actually done this, and Seattle is one of the only cities in the country that has rising transit ridership. It's been falling pretty much everywhere else across the country since the end of the recession. In my experience in Portland, YIMBYs usually have a pretty Blaise attitude toward transit/taxes. They aren't supposed towards it theoretically but don't want to have it affect them personally. Also, in Portland itself, BID districts have essentially have become tax shelters to concentrate property taxes in order to fund streetcars/local improvements in wealthy "improvement" districts while the rest of the city suffers. It is pretty unclear exactly how many of them would actually support a direct property tax or income tax levy to support transit (the transit agency can't even recruit bus drivers its pay is so low).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2018 14:28
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Not explicitly, but that is the effective consequence of fighting upzoning, with the consequence of massive gentrification in lower-income neighborhoods. All those entry-level tech employees just starting in SF or wherever make bank, but anti-density housing policy and legal challenges from rich house owners ensure that they often have only two options: gentrify low-income areas or contribute to the environmentally-devastating sprawl America is so well-known for. I don't write that as a sob-story for poor upwardly-mobile tech bro, just to emphasize that the status quo left-leaning NIMBYs help preserve results in exactly what they assert they are fighting against. Admittedly, infill can be tricky, especially if the developer really cuts corners. Also, in all honesty, in that case, the NIMBY is making a rational choice since the infill really doesn't offer anything to them (fighting for street parking/lower property values/aesthetics etc). Obviously, some sort of infill needs to happen, NIMBYism isn't really a surprise. (Also, either way, housing is going to be market rate.) The solution is to actively increase the supply for low-income residents wherever possible (NIMBYs are still going to have an issue with it obviously). At the same time, Plenty of YIMBYs are libertarian-leaning, fine with development but solidly against further taxes that affect them. If taxes happen they want it going to their neighborhood, and although plenty of them are pro-development but also still weirdly car-reliant (transit is for the plebs). Granted, most left-NIMBYs seem to be in favor of protecting existing low-income neighborhoods because it is clear that community is going to be liquidated in favor for gentrifiers, and the low-income residents will be sent packing to where-ever they can find housing. It is hard to see a possible alliance with YIMBYs here because they are in implicitly in favor of paving over the existing neighborhood in the first place. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Aug 11, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2018 15:07
|
|
|
Btw, that highway episode was really quite good, the mods you were using really brought out that particular period of history.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
Btw, the US has seen a general drop in public transit ridership the last few years, probably a combination of lower fuel prices and a moderate economic recovery. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if those condos owners fought tooth and nail for those spots considering the class divide over public transit in LA. Also, PHIMY's probably oppose rezoning for market-rate housing because they want that land for public housing in the first place. Also, it has been clear that high-end high-density housing really doesn't help affordability to a significant degree. I could see it work if just they tax the hell out of new developments.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2018 14:01
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Hmm, maybe. For apartments though, I imagine most developers would love to have fewer parking spots. In LA, the car is still king, because well in honesty, it is probably 30-40 years before the transit system is comparable to other international cities. The post-war growth of LA was a disaster. quote:That's dumb, since there's no shortage of low density areas in basically every American city that could be easily redeveloped into higher density public or private housing. There's no need to compete here, if anything these cases complement each other. The question is where those areas are, and also plenty of city centers and neighborhoods around those city centers have become increasingly saturated. This matters because public transit in the US is very limited. quote:That's debatable: http://cityobservatory.org/more_evidence_of_portland_rent_declines/ It could also be explained by an unsustainable local housing market, and housing prices are either stagnating/starting to dip around the same timeframe. Portland is a bit of an oddity also since prices literally went up 20-30% in the space of a single year. Also, Portland doesn't have the wage base of Seattle. Also, I would like to see the numbers for different income group, it is possible housing for poor Portlanders is only becoming more unaffordable. Edit: https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/or/portland/ According to them, prices are more stabilizing than anything, and if anything studio rental prices are a bit of an outlier in their declines. quote:How exactly do you expect higher taxes on a thing to make that particular thing cheaper? Like I'm all for higher general taxes to fund public housing, but why would you want the tax to come specifically from new housing, when new housing is what you want more of? The issue is the type of housing. If they want to build luxury condos on prime real-estate there should be compensation for that social cost. I am fine with them building a larger portion of affordable housing in exchange. twodot posted:Obstructing market rate development on the basis you want that development to be publicly owned is nonsense in most areas. Like the Seattle city council recently blocked/delayed a new 442 unit building, and the council definitely didn't follow up with "Also here's our new tax to fund the city building its own 100 million dollar tower". (If they did that would be awesome, but let's not pretend that objecting to market rate development generally leads to public development) The city council should have followed up with "okay so you want to build your tower, here is some conditions for this and future projects." Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Aug 16, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2018/04/27/rent-declined-in-the-newest-buildings-in-portland-in-2017/ A surprisingly decent Willy Week article explains the situation. It seems like studios in new buildings in new buildings in inner Portland saw decreases (they were overpriced/overbuilt), while most of the rest of the city same increases especially for housing suitable for families. The poorest neighborhoods were hit hardest. So if you are a relatively high-income earner that is single, it is pretty good news, but not really for working people and families. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Aug 16, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
Yeah, public housing is being built in the US regardless of what is happening. That said, there are other reasons to stop private developments, such as considering gentrification itself as a destructive force.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2018 10:11
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Here's a thought experiment: If a city blocks a private multi-unit development in one neighborhood, where will those people go? What will be the consequences of this? A lot of people were probably either from local wealthy suburbs or from out of town in the first place. It is very possible they stay put.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2018 15:01
|
|
|
There was a comment above about how gentrification is at least environmentally friendly. Besides more environmentally friendly building standards (it really depends), displacement often forces more automobile use by lower-income people since they no longer have access to frequent or quality public transportation.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2018 11:01
|
|
|
There is going to be always a divide over space, YIMBY by promoting developers essentially want a specific type of housing to be built ("luxury" studio/1br condos) which doesn't work for everyone. That said, I will throw in that rent control and other efforts to de-commodify housing have a clear drawback: effecting the supply of further housing units. In that sense, they are short-term measures at best, maybe enough to slow increases for a while but not truely fixing the underlining issue which is an increasing amount of people want to live in a space with a finite amount of housing. It is also, why I think either mixed-income public housing or heavily subsidized affordable housing is the only way to cut the Gordian knot. It probably isn't going to be viable to keep out high-income earners forever, but the solution is simply to increase the cost of entry and use that to "spread the wealth" to the rest of the neighborhood. That said, I wanted to mention also, that there are cities (Portland) that are sitting on stockpiles of property taxes through BIDs (probably worth a video itself, the entire history of TIF (Tax Incremental Financing) is pretty fascinating). Even in a supposedly "left-wing" city, the municipal government actually has some of the resources it needs...but it simply refuses to do so. The Portland Development commission (PDC) is well on its way to already paying off its debt from the investments its made...and now is desperately trying to invent new improvement districts in areas that in no way need them (random working/lower-middle class residential neighborhoods). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 14:09 on Aug 23, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2018 13:50
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:This. Cities need to take up the burden rather than only leaving it to private developers and mandating carve outs to address affordability. The reason I also fight for the latter is because it's still miles better than the status quo of Boomer NIMBYs fighting to keep their single-family housing in the middle of the city. One issue with mandating affordability is that simply too few affordable units are created in each project, not enough to meet demand. I wouldn't necessarily get rid of them, but recongize at least they are working around the edges. You need hundreds if not thousands of new affordable units, not dozens. (Btw the PDC now .... "Prosper Portland...yeah" has a bunch of around 300-200 million a year largely funded by debt taken out from future property taxes. It isn't like resources aren't there in Portland at least, the local government just does everything possible to avoid making an effort.) It may not be possible in every city, but coastal cities particular have large asset bases that would theoretically support such a project, especially if the federal government was actually willing to do anything. Most of the issue isn't that there aren't answers but our political culture is just toxic. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Aug 23, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2018 14:25
|
|
|
Yeah upzoning on its own isn’t going to really change the situation, you’re only going to get more of what is going on. The obvious issue with growth boundaries is it puts more pressure on low income residents, less sprawl means less supply (I think they are still preferable.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
I could see the reason why there would be anger at concentrating so much future capital to a rail-line that in all honesty is running through suburban neighborhoods. Admittedly, it would improve efficiency to a degree by allowing transfers to less used lines, but at the same time, it is relying primarily on a at-grade network that shares its ROWs. (If anything San Francisco and Muni seems to be arguably similar, BART is pretty much a underground suburban train but with the obvious snag of the Bay.) It seems primarily a struggle between urbanities (who honestly probably prefer some improvements to trams) and the suburbs.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
Not all housing is the same, and you very well may have affordable family-sized housing torn down (since 827 covered what 97% of SF?) for luxury studios, and of course then you have the issue of rent-displacement of other neighbors. You can't build one particular type of housing stock and pretend it will equalize prices in other types. We know it didn't work in Portland. It was an extreme measure to address an issue that actually is far more complex than "just build." Ardennes fucked around with this message at 11:43 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2018 11:23
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:Just build solves 60% of the problem, IE the part of the market that can afford new housing at 80% of AMI or more. Those new units will change the rent dynamics in the neighborhood, pushing out previous tenants and eliminating existing afforable housing, and those afforable units aren't going to be enough. It is also unlikely the city is going to "keep building either." Also, those new units aren't going to be gear towards poor-families but upper middle-class singles. Arguably it doesn't solve anything if anything makes the issue worse. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:10 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2018 12:50
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:All of what you describe will already happen if no new housing is built. Newer developments usually accerlate genetrification and the "hipness" of a neighborhood by attraching more people to it in the first place (as well as bringing in more retail devoted to their clientale). More development in this context accelerates this process. Those people may not move into in the first place unless they are drawn to that location. You are inducing debate in this sense by coverting neighborhoods to be attractive to the upper middle class. Also, cities ie municipal governments aren't going to be building serious new public housing because the federal government won't back them up.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2018 14:04
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:I'm not sure how to tell you this, but if you are a high income person moving to a new city. The "hipness" of an area doesn't matter of you need someplace to live near your job. So the people living in existing neighborhoods will be displaced regardless. And since the new people can afford higher rents than the existing residents the average rent for the area will go up even with 0 redevelopment. This will cause economic displacement of people who aren't literally displaced. Btw, rich people honestly do care where they are living and there is certainly a price premium on certain neighborhoods or a city itself. They very well may look at different options, specifically if studios or 1br aren't necessarily available. In Portland, they kept on building studios/singles in premium areas until that particular housing market was oversaturated, and guess what it didn't help working people who needed larger afforable apartments. There are different types of "chairs." It is easy to oppose a certain type of redevelopment that is singuarly focused on disrupting neighborhoods to build a specific type of housing (studios/1 br condos), and doesn't take into account pretty much any other factor. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2018 14:34
|
|
|
Even if you are talking about track length (which honestly doesn't tell you that much), the Portland Metro area has a larger system per capita. Arguably so does Salt Lake City and Denver as well. Of course, at least Dallas is putting in an effort.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:yeah but the denver, salt lake, and portland metropolitan areas collectively have less population than dallas, the fourth largest metro in the nation, so More or less my point, that said at least Dallas isn't doing zero. Denver's system especially has gone through a growth spurt, and if anything shows that surge of capital investment can work (I am less sure of their PPPs). Btw, I think ridership in all of these systems will be depressed until oil prices rise or a recession hits. Car culture is still way too dominant in most American cities. Portland, for example, arguably may be better served by trying out more BRT. The Division BRT corridor is probably the best you are going to be able to accomplish to serve areas with no ROWs.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
Btw, the data has shown in Portland at least, that falling rents are only for specific categories of apartments (studios/micros/1brs) while 2br and 3br apartments are still rising. Also, it has a secondary effect, it seems there are less new projects on the horizon because they overbuilt one specific type of housing, and I wouldn't be surprised if the market for that specific apartment crashes as the rest of the current projects are completed. This is what you get when you just let the "market" take its course. (Also, the new construction is some of the ugliest buildings in the city. They are just terrible.) If you upzone...the result is going to just be bigger monolithic skyscrapers .... filled with "luxury studios."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Demand for luxury studios isn't infinite, this is another example of yeah, the market will take the lowest-hanging, most profitable fruit first. That type of housing without regulation is also turned into high priced studios as shown in Portland. Also, I don't know how complaining clearly broken practices is "economic segregation." If anything the current prices and strategy has pushed out working-class families and minorities from most of central Portland. This has been exacerbated by tax-funded improvement districts that progressively pushing the working class out of the city limits. Portland has already tried upzoning all over the place, and the results have been mixed to poor/negative. Mooseontheloose posted:Too true for the 2nd point in this sense, smaller suburbs could build apartment-style housing and help alleviate some of these problems. In Portland, it is already done, but developers pushed the lowest hanging fruits by focusing on apartments for singles. Eventually, prices for studios will probably decrease but infill housing usually doesn't address the issues of families needing housing, if anything it exacerbates it. If anything the non-upper middle class are just ignored/left behind because massively producing over-priced studios was seen as lucrative until that specific niche was completely oversaturated. It isn't that some type of upzoning needs to happen, it is just the current system of largely letting the market run while with various tax-funded subsidies is creating severe issues. (Also, part of the issue is that many of these developments were cheaply made but already designed with a certain high price point in mind. Rent prices are probably going to be sticky.) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Sep 15, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:If upzoning hasn't produced enough middle class housing i.e. down to 80% of AMI then you haven't upzoned enough. Yeah, upzoning has happened across central parts of Portland. It just keep on producing the same time of housing. Just increasing upzoning, isn't going to actually make developers build affordable housing. Housing is a very different thing than cars where it is easy to ramp up produce or change models, if anything it is highly speculative and it may take years for a project to be finished. More over it is highly cyclical and capital invensive for the companies involved. Portland has been very liberal in upzoning and it hasn't produced those results. KingFisher posted:Also low value properties and underdeveloped lots being upzoned and turned into luxury housing is an objective good. The new building with significantly more units, with a much higher per unit property value will generate significantly higher taxes for the city than the previous use of the land. In Portland, there are BIDs that essentially vacuum up increased property taxes and essential solely reinvest in projects in those districts. Portland has only been increasing them in recent years and now they cover pretty much every gentrifying area. (The PDC has been desperate to also keep these districts going long after they should be around.) Cicero posted:Agreed, the current strategy of "hardly do anything" has been a disaster. More radical, serious solutions are required. The government enforcing economic segregation in SFH-only neighborhoods is the people's money being used to make invisibly gated communities. That has to stop. More drastic solutions are required, but upzoning without public investment and regulation toward affordability is clearly a non-starter. quote:Bullshit. Portland has hardly upzoned anything. Most of the residential area is still mandatory very low density, just like nearly all US cities. You absolutely have no idea what you're talking about and clearly, haven't a real clue about how things are right now in PDX. There is infill all over the place including middle class/upper middle class areas. Also, they fact that most of Portland are still single family dwellings is a non-sequitor, it is still a relatively small US city. quote:Even then, when lots of new supply comes on the market, prices tend to drop or at least stabilize. Prices are still increasing for two-three bedroom apartments bud. Trickledown isn't working. quote:Developers like money and will target the most profitable, lowest-hanging fruit first. When you don't upzone very much, and the areas that are upzoned are relatively "central" neighborhoods upzoned for large apartment buildings, yeah no poo poo it's mostly apartments for singles or DINKs, what else would you expect? Btw, even non-central neighborhoods have been opened up for upzoning including those of the edge of the city. The subsidies are BIDs and property taxes strictly being funneled to developers and infrastructure in those districts. Basically, you are asking "faith" in a plan that clearly hasn't been working and now the population has been caught in the middle. Moreover, the housing market has cooled off and fewer new projects are in the pipeline and zoning has almost nothing to do with it. The entire endeavor created a bubble to fulfill speculation on the construction of the "lowest hanging fruit" but this didn't actually trickle down to the population at large since developers didn't have an incentive to construct affordable housing and instead you have a bunch of projects that will be underutilized and perhaps some that won't even be completed. Upzoning without government intervention to address affordability just hasn't worked. Btw, a lot of this discussion sounds semi-libertarian, that it is the government "getting in the way" that is causing the problem not that market dynamics in the US have and will continue to generally gently caress over the poor because that is how capitalism is designed. Developers will naturally try to avoid providing afforable housing if possible because there are looking for a lucrative market even if you allow them to do whatever they want. Portland's municipal government has bended over backwards to pretty much allow them to what they will, and they did. It just didn't work. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Sep 17, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
Also, "Market-rate production is associated with higher housing cost burden for low-income households, but lower median rents in subsequent decades." sounds like it is saying what I am saying. In Portland, the growth of market rate studios has actually started to decrease rental prices through supply, but it hasn't helped low-income households. The issue with "letting the market roam wild" supply is targetted to particular types of housing stock at a certain price point. In Portland, this is exacerbated by the urban growth boundary (which has its issues) since there is only so much cheap housing on the fringe of the metro region. In SF, sprawl probably helped address this issue to a certain point (at the cost of congestion and environmental damage). Either way, prices for studios and I bedroom places did stablize in Portland (at a higher price point) but 2 brs and 3 brs are continuing to climb in price because they simply aren't being built. Cicero posted:All I've read about are upzones in central areas and little strips. The current zoning map shows most of the residential area still zoned for very low density. That's hardly "all over the place". The metro area is about 2 million (most of which is suburbs, some in a completely different state), while Portland itself is about 700-800k it isn't a terribly large place. But the fact you think there are single family homes left is the issue explains a lot. There has been a absolutely massive building boom in Portland, and just because most of the original city is left...isn't enough. Basically, it sounds like you will only accept the entire city being bulldozed. Btw, most of the year I live in Moscow, a city most of which is made up of extremely high density housing blocks. Those housing blocks were built on the fringes of the existing city and then connected to the center through very high capacity heavy-rail transport. It works becuase it was designed in a certain way and had the infrastructure to support it (the traffic is a nightmare). Portland honestly doesn't expect for light-rail lines in awkward areas. If Portland had Moscow style density, it would be a f'ing trashfire. quote:lol, more "trickle down" bullshit from supply and demand denialists. Or rather, people who acknowledge that demand outstripping supply causes prices to rise, but insist that increasing supply will have no effect, somehow. "The poor are getting outbid by the rich because there's not enough X to go around, so let's make more X" is totally the same thing as "give tax cuts to the wealthy", right? Different types of housing dude, I have said this a dozen times at this point.Btw, the BIDs are pretty much tax subsidies to the rich. quote:Only in little bits and pieces though. It's basically the urban village model. Now, concentrating the most density along certain corridors or in certain areas isn't the worst idea, it's just that, if you look at the map, you can see even most of the "higher density areas" in, say, Eastern Portland are still only like R2 or R1. That's basically "missing middle" level density, which is really what the minimum level of zoning should be at across the city, and those corridors should be at low or mid-rise. Basically, the city couldn't handle that type of density even if the market wasn't cooling, there just isn't the transportation infrastructure that could support it quote:Do you have an article that talks about this more? Also, property taxes being funneled to developers or to infrastructure are two very different things. Both, "Propser Portland" has a bunch of planning documents. I honestly discovered most of it myself. Look at the maps and budgets in particular to get a sense of the scale and money involved. Most of it is still supporting development. Also, the infrastructure is usually concentrated in particular districts. quote:It only requires "faith" if you haven't been paying attention and think supply and demand don't exist (or only works one way?). That is because the world is clearly much more complicated than "supply and demand" and that social utility is usually lost in that mix. The market will supply plenty of luxury studios and 1 brs aparments, what is everyone else going to do? Letting the market making one particular type of housing, isn't actually solving the issue and in some ways is exacerbating it. Obama loved charter schools and Krugman lost his mind over Bernie, they aren't the best examples man even if they aren't classical libertarians. Both of them are too reliant on market solutions, and both are still more moderate than your proposals. Increasing total supply simply put doesn't address the actual disparity happening simply put because it is overproducing one particular style of housing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I can't find anything about "BID" being some special portland thing (though Googling it mostly gets construction/project bid info) but assuming it stands for Business Improvement District then you're totally misunderstanding what a BID is. In a BID the properties choose to pay additional taxes that go towards paying for increased services in their direct area. It's like the exact opposite of being given a tax subsidy by the city. The idea of BIDs and other improvement districts is that improvements are paid for by TIFs ie paying down bonds with future property taxes. The problem is that the PDC has steadily refused to wind down these districts in order to return money to the general fund and instead has fought to prolong them even after bonds are paid off ahead of schedule. Moreover, they are expanding them into areas that honestly probably don't need to be changed and will probably ruin their pre-existing character, for example along 82nd which is a Slavic/Asian immigrant district. Cicero posted:It's associated with higher housing cost burden in the short term for the neighborhood where the development is concentrated, yes. The fact that it reduces displacement even in the short term for the region implies that the regional housing cost burden goes down immediately. The burden depends on what type of housing stock is available. quote:If only there was something we could do about the former, like, say, spread out the development over the whole region rather than hyperconcentrate it into tiny little areas. Alas, it is impossible for us to do what every other country already does for some reason. The issue is that developers don't give a flip about affordable housing unless they are forced to and will continue to make the same type of housing stock. quote:It would be easier for them to be built if missing middle housing was legal in more of the city. That said, where are you getting your data? Because what I'm seeing is that 2br and 3br prices stabilized too within the last couple years: From this article: quote:Rents for apartments in newly constructed buildings declined last year—marking a real change, at least temporarily, in the upward trajectory of housing costs. https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2018/04/27/rent-declined-in-the-newest-buildings-in-portland-in-2017/ quote:No, the metro is about 2.5 million (well, 2.45 million): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_metropolitan_area and the city proper is 650k. Yes, small for a major city, but still a major city. And you're just ignoring how tiny suburbs in other countries are still more dense. You seem to have a weird sense of American exceptionalism, as if low density was just built into the soil. The metro is 2.389,000 million but including suburbs like Vancouver that honestly have a completely different way of conducting their affairs. quote:Who gives a poo poo about non-historic buildings if refusing to replace them means people suffer more? What a bizarre position for a socialist to take.[/qoute] In this case upzoning doesn't do squad because that working-class family is forced out anywhere and isn't going to be able to squeeze into a $1300 dollar a month studio. It is just a different method of segregation. quote:Agreed, to accommodate truly high density buildings en masse, you'd need radically improved infrastructure (which would be a good idea). But you don't need that for missing middle level housing. For that, you could get away with cheaper, faster improvements: more buses, more greenways and other bike-friendly improvements, more mixed-use zoning so that more businesses are in walking and biking distance, etc. Portland pretty much maximized this type of transit, and at a certain point people aren't going to be biking 45 minutes to get to downtown. Bike lanes are fine but they are a poor replacement to genuine infrastructure. Portland just really wasn't historically designed for high density beyond a certain point. quote:If these are separate markets because of different kinds of housing, why is it that new market-rate developments in the bay area -- which are largely nicer, "luxury" complexes -- is still associated with lowered regional displacement, even in the short term? If I'm missing something there, by all means point it out. So far you seem to be doing your best to ignore the fact that even a very obviously left-leaning study out of UCB said that while market-rate units aren't as good as subsidized ones for affordability, they're still a net positive. A new positive for whom? Like the article pointed out, even if rents decline or stabilize they don't do it for every catagory. Moreover, in the case of SF, it sounds like the working class was generally displaced to make way for these developments and probably pushed out in more inaccessible areas. (In Portland, they generally get pushed into East Portland/Gresham and thats why prices are still climbing). quote:Absolutely it could, it only lacks the political will. Sure, heavy rail/subways would take a long-rear end time, but converting general traffic lanes to bus only lanes can be done much more quickly and cheaply. Converting local neighborhood streets to greenways for increased bike usage is also pretty drat easy, they seem to be doing it mostly just throwing down diverters every few blocks, that's certainly not that hard. Increasing parking fees or even introduction a rush hour congestion charge, these are options that aren't too difficult to actually implement. Politically these things are certainly challenging, though. Yeah, basically a lot of that is essentially pushing working class people at a certain point (beyond bus lanes). Working class people won't be in biking distance of jobs in East Portland, and high parking fees/congestion charges are pretty much to make sure only upper-middle-class people can affordable commute by car downtown. More buses are better, but it doesn't really matter if they are stuck in traffic on narrow city streets. Portland has pretty aggressive about most of this stuff anyway, it just low-cost options have reached their limits. quote:Wait, so first the infrastructure isn't good enough to handle higher densities, and now focusing the improved infrastructure in higher density areas is bad? But thanks for the tip, I'll take a look. The issue is there needs to be a focus on broader regional wide investment not focusing cloistering way property taxes in specific districts. Infrastructure needs to be built but it needs to done with the entire city/metro in mind. quote:The market demand for luxury studios and 1br apartments isn't infinite, and when affluent people take new units like those that didn't exist before, they free up space in lower end housing they would've otherwise competed for. That filtering down effect is real, it's not just "libertarians" that acknowledge it, and I believe it's discussed in the study I linked to. In the Portland, plenty of people, especially in new buildings, are transplants. It lines up what it is going on in that WW article. quote:Bulllllllshit. You can't say that because -- at least from what I've read -- they haven't put out specific proposals to even compare against. But what we DO know is that Krugman and Obama's administration supported relaxing zoning rules to allow for more housing. For example: Deregulating zoning is a market-based solution on its face because your are almost entirely relying on market-housing. Also, the Cato Institute literally is praising Obama in that article. Also, the Berkeley article is actually fairly negative about market-based solutions on their , and seems to suggest that market-based housing may have a minimal positive effect on addressing affordability even if there is a effect on regional median rents. (It seems there is minimal "filtering" from high end to low-end earners for housing.) Btw, this is really extremely tedious and you obviously aren't responding to what I am saying and we see to be dancing around the same points about a dozen times at this point. Median prices can decline across a metro, but not necessarily for all type of housing/income groups/areas. In Portland, prices are cooling/even declining in certain areas but are still climbing for essentially ghettoized portions of the metro area, where the working poor has been concentrated because they have been too priced out of the rest of the metro area and it doesn't seem to be stopping after a massive construction boom. If it seemed bulldozing everything in sight made a difference, I would be more open to "just upzoning it" but instead it seems to have greater a whole host of issues that haven't resolved the real issue at the place: affordable housing for people who can't afford it otherwise (and preferrably doesn't push them into the edge of civilization). Anyway, at a certain point, developers are slowing/stopping construction because they have figured they over-built studios and are unlikely to move on to affordable housing because the working poor in Portland simply don't have enough cash to draw developers. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Sep 18, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2018 00:22
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Square footage restrictions also keep costs down and I am starting to see towns in Massachusetts talk about square footage restrictions for SFHs, I am imagining the same might need to be done for apartments too. Eh, most of the new apartments I have seen advertised 400-500 SQ in Portland and are hardly palatial. If anything developers are building small and cheap and charging luxury prices with the expectation they would make a ton of money off of transplants. The problem is prices are most likely going to be sticky because no landlord wants to disrupt the market and there may be enough people still moving to keep the market from collapsing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2018 04:20
|
|
|
It also depends on just the about of traffic involved. Around rush hour in Moscow, it is almost certainly faster to use to the metro (for example) compared to street traffic and it is probably the same in New York.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2018 07:48
|
|
|
The issue is simply public transit is about 30-40 years delayed from where it should be, although there is some progress. Obviously everyone knows about the Red Cars scandal at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2018 10:12
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:This maybe a New England solution but I think the towns should start working together more to expand their regional transit options. That would require, however, towns to actually care about long term transit. LA's transit agency covers the county which includes a bunch of smaller cities, and there is a fair amount of cross-county cooperation. A lot of the issue though is just the amount of money it takes to build infrastructure in 2018 LA. LA just needs tens of billions to catch up at this point, and the federal government is going to have to pony up some money. Some funding has been raised through sales taxes but there is a limit of how much you can push it. Likewise, New York is going to have to spend billions to fix its existing system, but at the end of the day, it is money that is going to come back through efficiency.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2018 15:11
|
|
|
There is room for a middle ground between single-family homes and tower blocks, but at the end of the day, the issue is very much how modern American cities are constructed. At the end of the day, American cities almost certainly need tens if not hundreds of billions of infrastructure development, particularly in transportation, to get competitive on an international level. Otherwise, you get stuck increasing density with overburdened and inefficient infrastructure which will spiral into other issues. The ultimate result will probably be a muddle but it isn't a surprise it will be a mess.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
the issue with getting rid of zoning without heavy levels of investment and planning, it is very possible you’re going to end up with density with low levels of services and infrastructure. Personally, I would just go with the “international” method of planned high density communities with high infrastructure investment including large amounts of public housing. Also, it is possible to preserve historical areas without protecting every random subdivision.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2019 10:52
|
|
|
It more or less sounds what happened to Eastern bloc countries. Most of the time, the government still owns the structure but the actual units were privatized and owners pay fees to local government for upkeep (or at least theoretically). It isn't necessarily ideal in many cases, but mileage may vary. ---------------- The issue with the way affordable housing is built now is usually the amount of affordable units is usually way way too low for the demand and the cost. In Portland at least (but it is also the case in other cities), urban renewal districts often pump millions into developments result in a relative small number of units (and usually are the worse units in the building). It just isn't efficient. ' Btw, I think there was a discussion about "just building" market priced housing would solve the issue and so far at best rent prices have stabilized but haven't seriously declined and the city is as much in a housing crisis as it was years ago despite a surge of construction (which is starting to peter out). Also, there is almost certainly a higher number of people on the street or living in their cars.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2020 07:48
|
|
|
Portland is a good example of how it eventually works out. During the 2010s bubble there was a massive increase in density of market priced units, homelessness, and inequality. A big part of it is just that high-density projects only really get built when they big back off speculative bubbles, but usually see a relatively more minor reset in prices when it explodes since landlords/property management companies can often afford to "wait it out." The rest of the city mostly suffered during the meantime and the trickle of affordable units was a drop in the bucket.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2020 20:12
|
|
|
I would say the biggest effect that Buttgieg would have on the administration is how much there is going to be a push for mass transit versus highway spending. According to Buttgieg's campaign literature, he seemed to favor the current ratio of spending...which has led to the current result.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2021 13:33
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:lack of public transit in the us is always more of a local issue than a federal issue. we like to keep the mental shorthand that the feds could just airdrop infinite money on the problem if they really wanted to to solve any issue, from housing to infrastructure to education to public health, but something like lack of trains is generally more tied up more in local political fights and regulatory obstacles than simple inadequate funding. like turning on the money faucet would definitely help but it is not itself a sufficient solution to the problem Transit systems are going to need federal spending if they are going to improve in any real shape or form and the more limited federal spending is, the more it is going to affect local projects. The federal government could easily incentive local decision making by easing the issue of funding in the first place. The Secretary of Transportation theoretically should there to appeal to congress for that spending.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2021 00:18
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:not within feasible or realistic limits. even if the feds just yeet money at local agencies, there is no guarantee that a republican swing won't cut off that support in five to ten years. there is a reason federal funds are often distributed through a less-useful grant process than as long term subsidy It is ironic, since the Fed's by limiting sharing to 50% actually dramatically slowed down the development of the Portland MAX which until that point had been mostly federally funded. The Federal government has trillions at its disposal and can make transit enticing if it was willing to actually make it a priority. The Secretary of Transportation can't do this unilaterally but can be an important influencer. If you fund it, they will come. Either way, even if the Federal government can't demand projects by fiat, it has the ability to greatly incentivize them, but simply does not. If the NYC subway could access 30-40 billion of federal grants to retrofit itself...do you think Cuomo could say no? It is also why the US economy is going to continue to fall behind because in many ways it is simply not competitive in infrastructure and it is getting to the point it is affecting productivity and overall efficiency. We made poor choices with our investments and are only doubling down on them. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 08:27 on Jan 4, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2021 08:24
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:this continues to assume that the problem with american transit is lack of access to funds for capital improvements, which is like the one thing the feds are good for. a lot of agencies would be completely willing to lay new track or buy new buses, IF they could guarantee the funding to pay for drivers and maintenance folk - that continual operational funding is the part more frequently lacking, the part the feds cannot guarantee, and the part which requires a high degree of local buy-in which is the more important component. NYC metro for sure needs a refurb but what use is it to the West Buttsvile Metro if they can use a neo-TIGER grant to lay down a streetcar which is only open for a few hours a day due to staffing issues? That is the thing, even if the Sec of Transportation is disinterested in promoting public transit, than the situation is really that unworkable and we have to accept the consequences of that choice. The Sec of Transportation's chief role in policy is being an advocate, but if there isn't even interest in that, then we are simply talking about a managed decline at this point. Also we aren't at the stage of worrying about small cities at this point, I am simply talking about getting the transit system of the single largest source of GDP going. Btw, LA also has been begging for decades for further federal capital funding but has been unable to get it. Badger of Basra posted:I mean part of the problem in the US is that if the federal government gave NYC 30 billion dollars for subway expansion we'd get like, 3 or 4 miles and maybe 6 or 7 stations because our costs are out of control. The lack of funding is part of the problem but so is the inability to use the funding in an effective way. More than expansion, I would say the first priority is actually utilizing the track we have at the moment not just the NYC subway but multiple other systems are in badly need of repair.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2021 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 04:33 |
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:whether or not he is or isn't, i feel like the general tone of his appointment is more obligatory pessimism on the part of the online left completely divorced from any of the actual policy issues which stand in the way of the implementation of public transit in the usa and the federal government's role in same At a certain point, I really don't care either way about the broader politics of the pick if something actually got done, but the issue is that the executive branch is far from helpless on the matter. quote:everywhere is important We are at the triage stage at this point. quote:from which program and for which need? LA Metro got many hundreds of millions for capital expansion alone in 2020 Hundreds of millions in a drop in the bucket for the capital demands of Los Angeles. The previous transit plan was asking for tens of billions from the federal government, money matters. Badger of Basra posted:I am very confident NYC would find a way to spend that money wastefully if you told them they could only use it for repairs as well. You don't really have a choice considering the economic output of the city. It isn't actually optional spending. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Jan 4, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2021 23:27
|
|
